medigraphic.com
Órgano oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Cirugía Dermatológica y Oncológica, AC

2011, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Dermatología Cosmética, Médica y Quirúrgica 2011; 9 (3)

Culture with cytobrush –a method for onychomycosis diagnosis in soldiers of the Mexican Army

Vera IDS, Salinas CZ, González SPC, Fernández MRF, Arenas R

Language: Spanish
References: 28
Page: 181-185
PDF size: 114.85 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Onychomycosis represents 0.5 to 13% of skin diseases. 71 to 85% are caused by Trichophyton rubrum. The sensitivity with KOH is 92%, and for the culture is 82%. However, the number of patients with positive direct examination and a negative culture is high (29%), and culture can also confirm an additional 5 to 15% of superficial fungal infections with a negative KOH. To our knowledge there is no data using Citobrush in cultures.
Objectives: To evaluate the use of Citobrush (CT) for diagnosis of onychomycosis of the feet, and also to determine its frequency in the military personnel in Mexico City .
Material and method: Descriptive, open, observational, prospective and transversal study. Data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics.
Results: 92 males were included, with an age range from 18- 48 (mean age 26.1). We found clinical data of onychomycosis in 28 (30.4%), 10 (10.8%) had positive cultures; 22 (23.9%) patients without nail changes had a positive culture. The most common isolated agent was Candida spp with 25 cases (78.1%), followed by Trichophyton spp, with 10 cases, 31.2%). In 1 case (3.1%) Acremonium spp was isolated .
Conclusions: Citobrush technique is useful for the diagnosis of onychomycosis and also for identifying a large number of asymptomatic carriers.


REFERENCES

  1. Arenas R. Micología Médica Ilustrada, 3ª ed. México, Mc Graw Hill 2008: 61-94.

  2. Bonifaz A. Micología Médica Básica, 2a ed. México, Méndez-Cervantes 2000: 35-62.

  3. Szepietowski JC, Reich A, Garlowska E, Kulig M, Baran E. “Factors influencing coexistence of toenail onychomycosis with tinea pedis and other dermatomychoses”. Arch Dermatol 2006; 142: 1279-1284.

  4. Hay RJ, Baran R, Haneke E. Chapter 4. “Fungal (Onychomycosis) and other infections involving the nail aparatus”. En Baran R, Dawber RR. Diseases of the Nails and Their Management. Oxford, England, Blackwell Science 1994: 97-122.

  5. Sikora M, Pachołek T, Soter K, Szepietowski J. “Analysis of fungal skin and skin appendages infections in the region of Wrocław in the years 1995-1999”. Mikol Lek 2000; 7: 145-151.

  6. Roberts DT. “Prevalence of dermatophyte onychomycosis in the United Kingdom: results of an omnibus survey”. Br J Dermatol 1992; 126: 23-37.

  7. Heikkila H, Stubbs S. “The prevalence of onychomycosis in Finland”. Br J Dermatol 1995; 133: 699-701.

  8. Gupta AK, Jain HC, Lynde CW, Watteel GN, Summerbell RC. “Prevalence and epidemiology of unsuspected onychomycosis in patients visiting dermatologists’ offices in Ontario, Canada: a multicenter survey of 2001 patients”. Int J Dermatol 1997; 36: 783-787.

  9. Szepietowski JC. “Onychomycosis: prevalence of clinical types and pathogens”. En: Kushwaha RS. Fungi in Human and Animal Health, Jodhpur, India, Scientific Publishers 2004: 39-54.

  10. Rippon JW. Medical mycology. The pathogenic fungi and the pathogenic actinomycetes. 3a ed. Philadelphia, Saunders 1988: 187-296.

  11. Crespo V, Crespo A, Vera A. “Diagnóstico de laboratorio de las dermatofitosis”. Monografías de Dermatología 1997; VI (6): 362-374.

  12. Castillo Daudí V, Castillo Daudí M. “Técnicas de diagnóstico en micología cutánea”. Piel 1988; 3: 44-49.

  13. Head E. “Laboratory diagnosis of the superficial fungal infections”. Dermatol Clinics 1984; 2(1): 93-108.

  14. Das S, Goyal R, Bhattacharya SN. “Laboratory-based epidemiological study of superficial fungal infections”. J Dermatol 2007; 34(4): 248-253.

  15. Lacy Niebla RM, Guevara S, Arenas R. “Micosis superficiales en pacientes oncológicos. Estudio en 98 pacientes.” Med Cut Iber Lat Am 2007; 35(2): 83-88.

  16. Arenas R, Ocejo D. “Onicomicosis: frecuencia actual en un departamento de dermatología de la Ciudad de México”. Dermatología Rev Mex 1997; 41: 171-175.

  17. Leyva J, Méndez P, Arenas R. “Pie de atleta. Datos actuales sobre su causa en la Ciudad de México.” Dermatología Rev Mex 1998; 41: 58-62.

  18. Aristimuño M, Arenas R. “Candidosis. Experiencia en un servicio de dermatología.” Dermatología Rev Mex 1998; 42: 190-194.

  19. Daniel CR, Gupta AK, Daniel MP, Sullivan S. “Candida infection of the nail: role of Candida as a primary or secondary pathogen”. Int J Dermatol 1998; 37: 904-907.

  20. Roseeuw D. “Achilles foot screening project: preliminary results of patients screened by dermatologists”. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 1999; 12(suppl 1): S6-S9.

  21. Ungpakorn R, Lohaprathan S, Reangchainam S. “Prevalence of foot diseases in outpatients attending the Institute of Dermatology, Bangkok, Thailand”. Clin Exp Dermatol 2004; 29: 87-90.

  22. Ogasawara Y, Hiruma M, Muto M, Ogawa H. “Clinical and mycological study of occult tinea pedis and tinea unguium in dermatological patients from Tokyo”. Mycoses 2003; 46: 114-119.

  23. Garzón R, Carballo M, Del Valle E, Cipittelli L. “La importancia de la preparación del paciente en el examen micológico de laboratorio”. Rev Iberoam Micol 1988; 15: 307-308.

  24. Crespo V, Casañas C, Ojeda A. “Papel de examen directo en el diagnóstico de las dermatomicosis”. Actas Dermosifilogr 1997; 88: 671-675.

  25. Kemna M, Elewasaki B. “A US epidemiologic survey of superficial fungal diseases”. J Am Acad Dermatol 1996; 35: 539-542.

  26. Jones AC, Pink FE, Sandow PL, Stewart CM, Migliorati CA, Baughman RA. “The Cytobrush Plus cell collector in oral cytology”. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1994; 77 (1): 95-99.

  27. Fuller LC. “Changing face of tinea capitis in Europe”. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2009; 22(2): 115-118.

  28. Bonifaz A, Isa-Isa R, Araiza J, Cruz C, Hernández MA y Ponce RM. “Cytobrush-culture method to diagnose tinea capitis”. Mycopathologia 2007; 163(6): 309-313.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com